Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Rachappa Sathish Kumar, S/o. Rachappa – Appellant
Versus
Eaglesight Media Private Limited (ESMPL), Chairman And Director Mr. Ashwin Mahendra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations and lack of party representation (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's analysis of jurisdiction and representation (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. temporary injunctions require party representation (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. writ petition outcome and orders issued (Para 11) |
ORDER :
(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 04-04-2025 and corrected order dated 07-04-2025 passed by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.2499 of 2025 issuing ad-interim ex-parte Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from airing the programme of the 2nd petitioner.
2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri K.N.Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Varun Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent 4.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The 1st petitioner is a journalist by profession and is said to be running a social media in the logo Btv Kannada for broadcasting and publication. The 1st petitioner is one of the Directors of the 2nd petitioner-M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short). The Compa
Temporary injunctions cannot be issued against non-parties; principles of natural justice must be upheld in legal proceedings.
The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, while defendants claimed fair use and truth defenses for defamation, necessitating a trial to assess merits.
The court underscored the urgency for trial courts to address applications for interim relief in defamation cases involving social media to prevent reputational harm.
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
Interim injunctions must consider the prima facie case and balance of convenience, especially where prior rights and public airing exist.
The trial Court must provide a reasoned order on temporary injunction applications, particularly when delay could cause irreparable harm to a party's reputation or rights.
The right to privacy in matrimonial matters is protected under Article 21, and courts must carefully balance this right against freedom of expression when considering interim injunctions in defamatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
